DEUT1083 Another source of the Pentateuch that shows concern for what we are calling "human dignity" is to be found in the rabbinic inference from the command [this verse]. The rabbis infer that there is a circumstance when one may "hide himself" from the obligation to chase after his neighbor's ox, and that is if he is "an elder or a scholar," because such activity would be beneath his dignity. The accepted interpretation here is that since an elder or a scholar would not suffer this indignity even if his own property were involved, he need not act differently to save another's property. (Bava Metzia 30a-30b. See Rambam, Hilkhot Gezelah ve-Avedah 18:11. The rabbis in Berakhot 19-20 ruled that considerations of Kavod ha-beriyot cannot overrule a biblical negative command but only a rabbinical ordinance or a biblical positive command).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1084 This teaches us that he must return it to his [i.e., his "brother's"] domain. Therefore, if he returned it to a place where others saw it, but did not care for it, and it was stolen or lost, he must make restoration, his obligation being to return it to the owner's domain (Sifrei)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1085 This tells me only of "the ox of your brother." Whence do I derive [as included in the mitzvah] the ox of your foe? From (Exodus 23:4): "The ox of your foe" -- in any event. If so, why is it written [here] "Your brother"? Scripture speaks anent the evil inclination [i.e., Restore not only the oxen of your brother, but even the ox of your foe -- above the protestations of your evil inclination] (Sifrei)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1086 See [[DEUT760]] Deuteronomy 15:9 base SPERO 139

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1088 In Western society, when people hear a story of a person who returns an object of great value, the common reaction is (1) great surprise, (2) a comment about the unusually high moral quality of this individual who returned the object, and (3) a belief that this person should receive some type of reward for acting "beyond the call of duty." Judaism has an entirely different approach and expected level of morality regarding returning lost objects. Unlike Western society, Judaism regards returning found objects as a mitzvah and not merely a good deed (See the chapter "Mitzvot-Commandments" for discussion on the difference between the two). What does this mean? In a Jewish society not only is it not unusual for an object to be returned, but it is the expected norm and is even demanded as a Torah obligation [this verse]. In many societies, there are laws requiring someone to return the found object once it is picked up--you cannot keep it. But no other society except Judaism says that the individual must pick up the lost object to begin with. Judaism says that a person cannot pass by the object and do nothing, and the Torah repeats this commandment for emphasis two verses later. Therefore, a Jew can't say that "it's not my problem" or "let someone else worry about it." A Jew must pick it up. Most people feel more of a moral obligation to pick up and return the lost object if they know the owner. Therefore, the Torah specifically says that even if you do not know the owner, you still must retrieve the lost object (Deuteronomy 22:2).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1089 See [[LEV696]] Leviticus 19:18 love AMEMEI 240

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1087 "Who is honoured?" asked Ben Zoma (Abot iv. i.) It was a rhetorical question, for he himself knew the only true answer. "He who honors others; as it is said (I Sam. ii. 30): For I will honour them that honor Me, but those that despise Me shall be held in contempt'." The Talmud is emphatic that the honour of others should be a prime concern (Ber. 28b). One is absolved of a command of the Torah if its fulfillment be at the expense of one's own prestige. For though we are told ... [this verse]..., in the case of an old man, a scholar or a woman, the fulfillment of such a command, involving effort and loss of dignity, is not expected (B. Metz. 30a. Cf. Hoshen Mishpat 263. Ber. 43b). Far better than a man throw himself into a burning furnace then put his friend to shame. This opinion is expressed several times in the Talmud (B.M. 59a; Sot. 6a).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1090 If he returned it [i.e., the animal], and it ran away; returned it, and it ran away -- even four or five times -- he must continue returning it, it being written: "return shall you return them," "return" connoting even a hundred times (Bava Metzia 30b)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1091 It was taught: "return" -- this tells me only [to return it] to his house. Whence do I derive [that it may also be returned to] his guardian or his lot? From: "shall you return them" -- [wherever you wish]. and we are hereby taught that the owner need not be apprised [of its return] (Bava Metzia 31a]

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

DEUT1092 Not only is it the downtrodden whose cause the Torah champions as part of its insistence on substantive justice but it is all members of society who must be treated justly. The Torah, therefore, includes lengthy lists of civil and criminal laws for society as a whole, (See, for example, Exodus 21-24 and Deuteronomy 20-25) and the later rabbis developed this area of Jewish law extensively, beginning with the Mishnah’s Order Nezikin. The Torah itself, and the Rabbis even more, appreciated the fact that justice, to become a reality in people's lives, could not be left as a pious hope but must rather be translated into concrete norms. By presenting specific cases, both the biblical and rabbinic traditions made the demands of justice clear and binding. It was not enough to require a person who finds a lost object, for example, to return it (as in Deuteronomy 22:1-3). What if not one, but several, people claim it? How shall you determine the real owner? What happens if you cannot? What should you do, on the other hand, if nobody comes forward to claim the object? Must you keep it? If so, for how long? To what extent must you go to publicize that you have it? If it requires care (for example, if it is an animal), must you spend your own money to provide that care? To what extent? May you use the object in the interim? Returning a lost object is a relatively simple demand of justice. But as these questions demonstrate, even a straightforward requirement such as that easily becomes complicated -- and the rabbis, in fact, devoted an entire chapter of the Mishnah and Talmud to this issue (chapter two of Bava Metzi’a) Without that discussion, the Torah’s imperative to return a lost object would remain imprecise and unworkable, demanding, in some understandings too much, and in others, too little to make this aspect of justice part of an ongoing practice within Jewish communal life.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT